jaeger8888

How's the game going? I found it tough to find an approach to the Bunkers.

Sent it to your email address. Should be part of the game install, but you now should have it.

Don't know of any download site. If you want to post an email address I can send it to you as an email attachment.

It's been a while, some 6 years to be exact, but finally got back around to working on the scenario. Good tips on how to win, but what is the rate of success on a first play through. I just find this one of the tougher scenarios.

Has anyone ever won playing this scenario as the British?

If not, will they be introducing it in later releases? Thanks.

Instead of saying this gun should penetrate that armor, here is a more logical and rational means of determining a rounds performance against armor. " First of all the probiblity of the round hitting is worked out, if it does the angle between the surface and the incoming round is calculated. then you could use the De Marre formula. which is (velocity ^2 * Mass * (cosine angle) ^(2/n))/ diameter ^3 = C(thickness of plate/diameter of shell)^n where n and C are constants. However for sub caliber rounds at high angles +30 degrees the n in the (2/n) part of the equation is reduced to 1.11, the represent s the tendancies of these round to break up at steep angles. This was a change that was added in the most recent patch as certain people had noticed the penetration of sub claiber rounds was too high at extream angles. Now to use the equation you will need a scientific calculator and the values for constants. CM uses the German 75 L48 as a base on which all rounds are standardised (I think). In which case the value for C is 4.25 approximatly. The value for in is around 1.4-1.5 the higher value the flatter the nose is. For APDS the values is 5.6 for C and 1.37 for N reducing to 1.11 for angles greater than 30 degrees. BTW this is only how I would do it and it can get alot more complicated as any one who has read Rexfords posts will know. There are some other factors smaller shells can be destroyed by larger plates that simply will not move out of the way even though the penetration should be greater than the plates thickness, this is the so called shatter gap. Also the t/d ratio can have an effect on this process. "

Arguseye, you will never change their opinions on this matter. These are the types of individuals who still believe the sun revolves around the earth and the Egyptian pyramids were built by aliens. Hard science is voodoo in their world. Only the late model STG IIIF and Tiger I's side armor values give undue protection to the vehicles. The claim of wholesale devaluing of the Russian armaments is bogus. Having read material by authors like Ogorkiewicz, Zaloga, Forczyk, Michulec, Zetterling et al, the game certainly gives a good representation of the relative merits of the equipment on each side. I'll take their evaluations over the members of this board anytime. They have real credentials, PHD's in engineering, career armor officers and proven authors on this subject matter. You'll never change their assessments. Anecdotal evidence is more relevant to them.

As I've already stated, the Tiger and Stugs are way too resistant to damage. Wanted to know what all the fuss was about and wanted to do my own research. Sorry if its all too jarring for your ego. Obviously the gentlemen who opened this thread certainly wasn't aware of the problems with the game and decided to ask. If that is how you respond to people looking for help or a better understanding of the game, its amazing anyone would ever want to discuss anything on this forum. If that's how you respond to people I'm surprised that you've lived this long, but I'm sure you're not that brave in real life.

On page 102 of the BtB Manual it states: "...curved mantlets such as the famous "Saukopfblende" of the German StuGIII, which can provide an effective armor protection substantially higher than the base thickness and slope indicate..." If its so famous why can't it be googled on the web. The book "Sturmgeschutze III and IV" by Jentz and Doyle never mention it. Anybody ever hear of this feature? Have you tried the JSII against the Tiger I and Panzer IVH? Just wondering if you get the same results.

Response to "85mm DS-5 Soviet cannon penetrates 100mm Tiger armor out to 1,000 m.)" Where do you read that the DS-5 (you mean D-5?) could consistently penetrate the frontal armor of the Tiger at 1000m? In the article it cites the AA gun 85mm 52K M-1939 as the most effective gun. The 85mm gun on most T-34/85s were the ZIS-53S derivedfrom the 52K. 1000 meters is at the extreme range of the ZIS-53S effectiveness against the Tiger, The ZIS-53S could penetrate 102mm at 1000 meters (from the book T-34-85 by Zaloga). I found this on wikipedia " Savin was put to work modifying Grabin's gun to fit and incorporating other improvements, and his initial was added to its designation in recognition of his contribution: ZiS-S-53. The T-34-85 Model 1944, which included an improved 3-man turret layout, started production with this gun in the spring of 1944. When later tested against German armor, it was found that the tank gun developed from the 85-mm AA gun lacked the power of its predecessor and a new antitank gun was made, the 122-mm gun. " Although derived from the K52 85mm AA the resultant gun wasn't as satisfactory at tank killing as the original weapon. If anybody has the books cited in the wikipedia article it would be great help if they could look up the cause of the drop off in performance. Whether the ZIS-53S could consistently kill Tigers I'm not certain. At 500 meters I've killed Tigers and gotten them killed by the 85 in the game. I've tested 5 T-34/85s at 1000 meters against a single Tiger, usually one or two 85's are killed but the Tiger is overwhelmed by partial penetrations. Response to: - "Post May '44 Stalin II front upper hull is impervious to German KwK36 88mm AT at point blank, armor is no longer generally brittle." There were three articles, the tabs on the top brings you to two other articles. One of the articles state instances of 88mm/L56 from Tiger I's penetrating the front armor of the JSII at over 500 meters during Combat in May, 1944. The Russian test you cited was done at a 30 degree angle, but 30 degrees to what? It's kind of vague. The slope of the JSII is 30 degrees, is the angle on top of the 30 degree slope so that the shell impacts at a 60 degree angle. That would only be a glancing shot, hard to get a penetrating hit for anybody. The JSII was still vulnerable through the Turret. As the article stated, it couldn't be improved. The Third article states either tank could kill the other out to 1000m. Again the proof is in the pudding. Using BtB, Took 4 tigers vs 4 JS IIs in Dec 1944 at 1000m. The 88's shells more often than not ricochet of the JSII. The 122 invariably penetrated and caused catastrophic failure in the Tiger. But for every one 122, 3 88 rounds were fired giving the Tigers a chance to saturate the JSII. It's usually a even match unless your unlucky and get bad dice rolls. Almost all the JSIIs died from rounds through the turret. "- Post May '44 Stalin II lower hull is reinforced with tracks gave increased armored protection" Every combatant starting put all kinds of gadgets on their hulls to increase protection. The game is an abstraction, it can't take into account every knickknack a tank crew puts on their hull. I don't think anyone as done a study on the impact of tank tracks on shell performance, if anybody knows post it. The Late model STGIIIF addtitional armor was not tank treads but bolted on armor. "Soviet 85mm HE round OF-471 can defeat armor or Tiger I and Panther, by causing cracking and seam failure" The OF-471 was a 122mm round. I haven't read of an OF-471 for the 85mm.

I never claimed that in actual combat that the STG III or Tiger I was impervious to everything. As noted in my above postings, I've already conceded that the STG IIIF (late) is much to resistant to 76.2mm fire. As another poster has already mentioned its not a realistic simulation and really needs to be addressed. Even the STG IIIG is suspiciously too survivable. JSII vs PZ IV (long barreled 75) What is your definition of long range? If 1000 meters, I've tried that in a 4 on 4 situation multiple times and the JS2 barely get their paint scratched while all the Panzer IVs are dead in 60 seconds. I even gave the Germans a veteran and crack crew in two of the vehicles to no avail. Tried the Tiger I vs T-34/76.2 at under 50 meters. Too screwy, Tiger tanks side armor and rear armor is 80mm in the game which matches the documentation. Max penetration for the 76.2 is 81mm at 100meters. This also appears to be out of whack and needs to be addressed. The Panzer IVH also has 80mm frontal armor, but The 76.2mm does do a fairly good job at knocking it out in the game. The JSII is not invulnerable. Despite what Reznikov says, from the same website: http://www.battlefield.ru/en/tank-development/28-heavy-tanks/32-js1-js2.html You can't cherry pick your info. And real world physics is not theoretical. It's factual and real, your cars, airplanes and all the structures around you were planned and constructed using mathematics and physics. My background is in Computer Sciences, if I was to code this game what you propose that I use to model the real world? If I throw numbers away, then I might as well use some randomizing routine and the tanks would be generic vehicles and let the chips fall where they may. Read "The Design and Development of Armored Fighting Vehicles" by Ogorkiewicz. A real engineer with a real background in AFV developement. He uses real world physics.

You mistake your one track mind on play balance and fairness as being the sole objective of everyone else. That's not my objective. I'm trying to verify your claims about rounds bouncing of and whether the 76.2mm guns performance is less than it should be. Try reading the heading in the thread, you might find it enlightening. They don't all bounce of, the physics model implies rounds are penetrating but are not causing any damage . There's several factors the game has to model, probability of hit, probability of penetration, probability of kill or damage, each of which has a myriad number of factors built into it. It's obviously a bug in the game for the late model STGIIIF. A coder would not put a case statement or an if clause for every unit type in the game. Most likely an array element has a bogus value. I'm am not concerned with the date or play balance but trying to pin point what's really occurring within the game itself. If you actually open up your mind you might understand what others are tying to determine.

Just tested the F models. The 50mm F is an easy kill. The 50+30 late model is fru fru. Rounds penetrate but nothing happens to the vehicle from the hits. Wonder if the designers assigned some survivability rating to each vehicle and just booted this one?

Why do you put so much faith in Russian claims, but just as readily dismiss German claims as propaganda and hogwash? If you're going to accept his eyewitness accounts than you will have to accept German accounts just as readily.